Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id i35CRam23996; Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 08:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040402233348.0206d690@pop.utk.edu> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Duren Thompson <solveig@utk.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1333] Re: Centra vs webex X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Status: O Content-Length: 8636 Lines: 155 Marian, This sounds a lot like Centra E-meeting which we use here at the Center for Literacy Studies (or more truthfully, are *beginning* to use for cross country and cross-state meetings and trainings coordinated by the Center). Michelle Meilleur mentions that literacy practitioners in Ontario have used Centra for training as well. Currently Centra e-meeting is a service that the Southern LINCS RTC provides to NIFL and the southern regional states as they request it. We've used it for our Portfolio pilot project practitioner meetings twice this year here in TN. We didn't have funding for even quarterly face-to-face meetings and it was *way* cheaper than renting a phone bridge/conference call. It also allowed them to "share" a document they were working on and edit it as a group. I'm looking forward to using it to assist some of our far-flung presenters for our Summer Academy to plan their 3 hour joint presentations together. The biggest barriers that we've encountered are: 1) Training - it really does take about 30 minutes of "non-work/content" time to accustom practitioners to using it. 2) Headphones/microphones. Centra runs completely through your computer - no phone charges - and so requires a standard $15 headset/mic combo (although headphones and a standing mic will do). Folks just don't have these things and when they get them or borrow them they have the darndest time getting them plugged in right and then setting their systems to use them. Particularly in K-12 situations where the computers are so locked down the practitioner can't change any settings without a tech support person over their shoulder. 3) "Consistent" bandwidth. Centra really doesn't take up a lot of bandwidth (as long as you leave the video turned off) for a simple meeting. But if you are in a system with "jumpy" internet service (really slow, then ok, then fast, then dropped for a second, then slow, etc.) - it really messes with the participant's audio reception. Unfortunately, many of our rural areas have the strangest, small company phone service monopolies - with lousy phone service and thus lousy internet connections. 4) You *really* need a facilitator *pair* in order to effectively group edit a document. One to do the mark -up and one to "facilitate" the group. Working the technology to edit and working the technology to facilitate AND editing and facilitating is just too much for one person to do and be effective for the group. Our center librarian, Beth Ponder, has used it to conduct LINCS cataloging training for a group of 8 - like most new technologies, she said, "We needed to have designed our presentation for the tool - not just assumed our "in-person" PowerPoint would be effective unmodified." But her trainings was successful - just a little bumpy. I like Michelle's comments about how to "train" folks to use the technology. We tend to train folks to use Centra via a distance - with at least one or two tech folks to help straighten out the "glitches" via phone during that first set-up and training. The tech folks have to be separate from the presenter - and the step by step guides we have written do help! ;) Duren Thompson Center for Literacy Studies At 04:17 PM 3/31/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Has anyone used WebEx, or something like it, to do professional >development? The California Distance Learning Project recently purchased a >license to do some training of teachers on new online high school courses >that are being piloted. I got to lurk in one of the trainings, and it >seems to me that this model could be helpful in terms of getting a sense >of your audience. > >For one thing, it's synchronous. When you log on you get a phone number to >call, and everyone is on the phone together at the same time they are >online together, so you hear laughter, grumbling, snoring, whatever. There >is also a way to post an emoticon next to your name on the participant >list (although I never did find out how to get rid of it once it was >there). There is also an instant message screen to post questions or >comments. All this while we were watching the presenter's browser so he >could show us some information, how to log on to the courses, what's >there, etc. > >I think there is also a survey function. You can ask a question and have >everyone respond, and the results are aggregated immediately. (Does that >mean that in some ways this beats face-to-face??) > >It seems like having this capacity could be a great way to introduce >people to an online course, because you can talk back and forth and coach >while you are showing them. They can also have a separate browser window >open where they are doing whatever you are demonstrating, although that >involves toggling which could be challenging for beginners. > >Of course, there is a cost factor. I'm not sure of the cost but I know >it's not cheap, but on a statewide level it might be really cost-effective. > >I'm interested to hear the opinions of experienced users. > >Marian Thacher >OTAN >www.otan.us > >David Rosen writes: > >Heide and others, > > > >The problem for a presenter of getting feedback (information from the > >audience which allows you to know whether you are hitting the mark or > >not) is, as Heide pointed out, not limited to the online medium. I > >have been a speaker and performer (in a musical group, outdoors, at the > >Hatch Shell on the Esplanade in Boston) where the audience was seated > >so far away, and sitting in the dark, that I could not get tell if > >they were awake or even there. It usually isn't as big a problem > >face-to-face as it can be online. But it can be a big problem > >face-to-face, and I have talked with online PD course facilitators who > >say they get more feedback, much deeper and more personal feedback, > >from students online than in face-to-face classes. > > > >Recently I gave a keynote address to several hundred people at a > >conference. It was in a university chapel auditorium: very beautiful > >but also quite formal. I was on a stage behind a podium, very removed > >from those I wanted to dialogue with. And I didn't have as much time > >as I needed. I anticipated this problem and came prepared with > >hundreds of mini-questionnaires on purple slips of paper. These were > >passed out for me at the beginning, and people were asked to list 5 top > >trends in our society and 5 top trends in adult literacy from their > >perspective. They passed these (purple) slips to the end of the row > >where I had asked that they be tabulated. (Yellow) row tabulations were > >passed up to a gracious graduate student who had agreed to tabulate the > >yellow tabulations while I presented. When he was done I was given the > >feedback, and I read the results back to those assembled. Then we had > >a short discussion about what they and I saw as trends. (There was, of > >course, some overlap.) This worked for me as a presenter, giving me > >useful feedback for our discussion. And I think it worked for those in > >the audience in several ways: 1) it helped them focus on the topic - - > >trends in adult literacy - - by thinking about it from their > >perspective first, then listening to mine in the context of what they > >had been thinking about: how does this guy reinforce my thinking or > >challenge it? 2) it gave them something to do while latecomers were > >straggling in; and 3) it was amazing to all of us that we could get > >nearly 100% participation in a large group and get it boiled down so > >quickly. Maybe some of you also do this in your face-to-face staff > >development classes and workshops. > > > >So, what's the online distance learning equivalent of the face-to-face > >mini-survey? > > > >One thing I am planning to try, using Blackboard, is asking online > >participants to do a short survey. I will ask them to rate each of the > >course objectives in terms of their expertise -- from "don't know > >anything about this" to "am an expert at this." Then I will post the > >(automatically tabulated) results so everyone can see where the class > >is on each objective -- not individuals, but the group. This gives us > >all an idea of what we may need to spend more time on, and what's > >pretty much in everybody's grasp already. > > > >I am looking for other ideas like this that are quick and easy ways for > >online participants to give facilitators feedback.. Have you seen or > >tried something that will give the online facilitator this kind of > >feedback and also possibly the participants, too? > > > >David J. Rosen > >djrosen@comcast.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 23 2004 - 09:45:47 EST